Bill

[BT]

The claim was that statistics were suppressed specifically from the CDC. I have produced statistics from the CDC concerning gun violence. So what's the problem?

[BSB]

The claim I read was that NRA supported politicans defunded the CDC the 2.6 million it cost them to gather their statistics. Obviously that discourages the gathering of statistics on gun violence.

BTW, don't you want to lessen gun violence in the United States? I mean shouldn't that be a common goal for those of us who aren't chimp like when it comes to cooperation?

BSB 

[BT]

The NRA is certainly within their rights to advocate policy, or is that advocacy right being challenged? But even if the did support politicians who lowered the budget of the cdc by the amount the reports cost them to  produce, apparently the cdc found the money it needed from some other discretionary fund. So again what is the problem.

I have no problem with reducing gun violence, i do have a problem with idiotic legislation that didn't work the first time around, violates the 2nd and doesn't solve the problems of mental illness which were at the core of aurora and newtown. Get back to mewhen you have something more worthwhile to consider. What we have in front of us now is symbolic at best and downright dangerous at worst. And i am not a big fan of legislation that is hurried threw in the dead of night because WE MUST DO SOMETHING^tm . If you are going to do something do it right.

And i don't even own a gun.

[BSB]

Suppressing, or advocating to suppress, stats on a public health issue isn't advocating for the good health of this nation. So yeah, I take issue with it. Further, the only reason symbolic gestures have been made is because the NRA has stuck their nose into the legislation dumbing it down. A total ban on AR15s wouldn't be symbolic. And that was not done before thanks to the NRA. Further still, for the 50th time, banning a specific firearm does not run contrary to the 2nd Amendment. That was clearly pointed out by the Supreme court. And those who are now claiming it would are the emotional ones in the debate.

Get back to me when you can make sense.


BSB   

[BT]

Suppressing, or advocating to suppress, stats on a public health issue isn't advocating for the good health of this nation. So yeah, I take issue with it.

Advocating for public health is not the mission of the NRA their mission is to protect the 2nd Amendment.

Further, the only reason symbolic gestures have been made is because the NRA has stuck their nose into the legislation dumbing it down. A total ban on AR15s wouldn't be symbolic. And that was not done before thanks to the NRA. Further still, for the 50th time, banning a specific firearm does not run contrary to the 2nd Amendment. That was clearly pointed out by the Supreme court. And those who are now claiming it would are the emotional ones in the debate.

I did not know Fienstein was in the pocket of the NRA. Who knew! and that is 157 weapons banned.

Get back to me when you can make sense.

Get back to me when you have the facts and a worthwhile proposal. The health of a nation awaits you!!!!!

[sirs]

Further still, for the 50th time, banning a specific firearm does not run contrary to the 2nd Amendment.

BSB   

And further yet, the next school massacre that occurs, and it will occur, ironically in a "gun free zone", what's to keep the killer from using a different gun not "banned", which then produces the outcry, that THAT specific firearm needs banned, and those that "look" like it??

Not to mention that these pseudo assault rifles are NOT the gun of choice when it comes to those committed to murdering others using a firearm.  The semi-automatic piston is the exponentially VAST majority choice. 

So, as has been demonstrated, further, the prior pseudo assault gun ban did pretty much squat, as it relates to lessening any gun violence, massacres & murders still occurred.  The present Feinstein incarnation would have done nothing to prevent the recent ex-cop from his murder spree, here in Southern CA.  Why can't the left, if they're actually SERIOUS about lessening gun crime, do so without stepping on the 2nd amendment rights of the law abiding??

Let's have a serious dialog and see where we can have some common ground

[BSB]

You're not making sense yet, BT. Take all the time you need. Maybe a week or two will help?

I doubt it though, you just aren't up to it.

BSB

[sirs]

Yep, barrels still empty

[BSB]

I'm not going to retrieve it but in the Sunday NYTs National section there is a piece on advocates for concealed carry on college campuses. At the top of the page is a picture of a spokesman for "Students for Concealed Carry".  Jesus, you couldn't get much more nutty looking.


BSB

[sirs]

Yea, because its all about the looks.  How mean looking the gun, how nutty looking the gun owner, yada, blah, etc.

But in an attempt to steer discussion back to the rational:

LITTLE ROCK, Ark (Reuters) - Faculty and staff members in Arkansas would be allowed to carry concealed handguns on the state's college campuses under a measure approved on Friday by state representatives that also has the backing of Governor Mike Beebe.

The Arkansas state House voted 70 to 11 to allow colleges and universities to decide themselves whether to allow concealed weapons on their campuses, advancing the bill to the state Senate, which is expected to approve the bill.

Discussion of gun control and gun rights has dominated public debate in the United States since a gunman shot dead 26 people at a Connecticut elementary school in December, 20 of them first graders.

The advancement of the bill comes just days after Beebe signed into law a measure that allows concealed-carry permit holders to take weapons into houses of worship if the individual churches approve of the practice.

Beebe, a Democrat, was also expected to sign the bill that would leave it up to the schools to decide whether to allow concealed-carry on college campuses.

Arkansas would join 23 states that allow individual colleges or universities to decide whether to ban or allow concealed carry of weapons on campus, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Some states also allow students to carry concealed weapons.

Many college professors testified in favor of the bill.

Joel Anderson, chancellor of the University of Arkansas at Little Rock, has said he will recommend that the school retain its ban on concealed weapons.

Steve D. Jones, chairman of the advocacy group Arkansas Carry, said police cannot always respond immediately to a crisis on a campus. Students would feel more secure knowing that there are "trained, vetted individuals that will provide immediate defense for them, if an incident occurs," Jones said.

Article

[Plane]

Steve D. Jones, chairman of the advocacy group Arkansas Carry, said police cannot always respond immediately to a crisis on a campus. Students would feel more secure knowing that there are "trained, vetted individuals that will provide immediate defense for them, if an incident occurs," Jones said.

Article

Who vets and who trains the staff and students that will be regularly armed?

If this is well done , won't it be a well regulated militia?

Train them systematicly and give them credits .

[sirs]

Intuitive     

[Xavier_Onassis]

The purpose of a university education is not to protect one's self or others against gun nuts, but it is pretty obvious that if there are people on campus that are armed, they certainly should received some training.

[BT]

You're not making sense yet, BT. Take all the time you need. Maybe a week or two will help?

I doubt it though, you just aren't up to it.

BSB

My goal is not to convince you nor spoon feed you my thoughts. If you can keep up, well good on you.

[sirs]

The purpose of a university education is not to protect one's self or others against gun nuts,

Who claimed it ever was??   

if there are people on campus that are armed, they certainly should received some training.

Who ever claimed they shouldn't??